Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:08:54.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replies to the Comments of Paul Guyer and Andrew Chignell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Marcus Willaschek
Marcus Willaschek*
Affiliation:
Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main
*
Email: willaschek@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Author Meets
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 295 - 311
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The contributions to this book symposium were first presented at an Author Meets Critics session of the North American Kant Society at the Pacific APA Meeting in Vancouver, 19 April 2019. I am grateful to Eric Watkins for making this event possible and to Lucy Allais for chairing the session in Vancouver. I would also like to thank the editors of Kantian Review for their willingness to publish our exchange in this journal. Further thanks to Fabian Burt for valuable comments and to Sean Neagle to helpful linguistic advice.

2 See Andrew Chignell’s contribution to this symposium and my response for a discussion of the role of transcendental realism in Kant’s Rational Sources Account.

3 Relatedly, Guyer takes the three steps of the general template of Kant’s Rational Sources Account that I reconstruct in chapter 4 of my book (a logical/real transition, a regulative/constitutive transition plus the assumption of transcendental realism) to represent the ‘purely critical strand of Kant’s argument’ (p. 3). But as I see it, these three steps as such are not critical of metaphysics at all, which can be seen from the fact that a proponent of metaphysical realism might accept them as a fair statement of her view.

4 This presupposes that the antithesis is interpreted as not implying the existence of a totality of (an infinite series of) conditions, but only as denying the existence of an unconditioned condition within the empirical world.

5 Note, by the way, that TRC is not meant to justify our tendency to use regulative principles constitutively, as Chignell (pp. 8, 14) assumes, but merely to explain it. Of course, Kant does not think that this tendency can be justified.